Tuesday, June 28, 2016

In a better world, Congress should react
to the Orlando
shooting by doing something close to the wishes of the majority American public and in their best interest in terms of their public safety and
security. Unfortunately, the Congressional action we have seen in reaction to
Orlando, Sandy Hook and countless others, is
the most appalling example of gridlock and a broken government – Congress did
nothing; again, and again, and again.

87 % favor preventing
certain people, such as convicted felons or people with mental health
problems, from owning guns

85% favor
preventing people who are on the U.S. government's Terrorist
Watchlist or no-fly list from owning guns

So, the American public clearly wants
expanded controls and regulations of guns and people who buy them; however, the
same poll also shows us that 90% of the public opposes preventing all Americans from owning
guns. So, the public does not want the government to “take our guns away”, and
based on public opinion, it seems to be only a fantasy conspiracy theory that
such an action would ever be undertaken.

Despite the overwhelming public will;
despite an old fashion standing Senate filibuster; despite an unprecedented 26-hour sit-in by House
Democrats – Congress refused to do anything with respect to the Orlando shooting. If Congress didn’t act following the slaughter of twenty, 6 and 7 year
olds at Sandy Hook; should we be surprised that they didn’t react to a massacre
of 49 innocent souls in an Orlando
nightclub?

While it may be easy to blame the National
Rifle Association (NRA) and their money and lobbyists, we need to look deeper
at what allows Congress to blatantly disregard public opinion and give so
much power to a minority interest. It’s not just the NRA and it’s not just the
gun issue. It’s about a host of issues and the inability of Congress to address
difficult issues and take action.

It’s
the result of a complex labyrinth of House and Senate rules (formal and
informal) and procedures that are designed to frustrate the Founding Father’s
cornerstone of democracy – “majority rule.” Thomas Jefferson, a staunch
advocate of majority rule said: "Where the law of the majority ceases to
be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes its
place, and life and property are his who can take them." --Thomas
Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809. ME 16:337

A scary thought for sure; and when it’s
boiled down, the lack of majority rule is the underlying reason for most of the
public unrest that is characterized as broken, dysfunctional government and
gridlock. When you prevent majority rule you allow a minority to control decisions, as Alexander Hamilton pointed
out, “To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case
where more than a majority is requisite to a decision). . .” Federalist
Paper #22.

Yes, we have a very divided electorate which seems to have grown
more divided in recent years. But, the move to prevent majority rule has also
made it more difficult to craft bipartisan solutions.

In the House of Representatives a measure cannot even be
brought to the Floor unless a majority of the majority party (Republicans)
agrees – the so-called “Hastart Rule”. Thus, based on the current numbers of
Republican and Democrats in the House, all major issues are controlled by 29% of the members.

In
the Senate, the old, standing filibuster has evolved into the new “silent”
filibuster, where a Member simply says he will filibuster and action which then
automatically requires a supermajority of 60 to bring an action to a vote. And,
if that’s not enough, there is now an overused procedure called a “Senatorial
hold” which allows any individual Senator to bring any action to a halt by
placing a “hold” on it until certain demands are met.

These
are just some of the procedural “tricks” that are used to prevent majority rule
and they are used by both Democrats and Republicans. The sad part is that all
Senators and Representatives know these procedures are resulting in the
political gridlock that the public resents, but they refuse to eliminate them.
Both parties use them to prevent majority rule, avoid responsibility, and create
the gridlock which they can use as an excuse for their inaction.

The
media, responsible government reform organizations, and the few ethical Members
of the House and Senate (we used to call them “statesmen”) need to focus more
attention on these, modern-day “demons of democracy” and the ease by which they
could be eliminated if the right public pressure were applied.

Reasonable
gun control regulations could have been implemented years ago, and many other
important issues could have been addressed if these destructive mechanisms were
scrubbed or seriously revised. And, who knows how many lives might have been
saved.